So far, I’m interpreting him as going from mild agnosticism (uncertainty of the knight in Seventh Seal), to more hardcore agnosticism (his recurring themes of God’s Silence), to his rejection of ´feel good’ interpretations such as ´God is love’ (through a glass darkly) to a more dark and dismissive interpretation (his God is a spider in through a glass darkly and Winter Light), to his outright rejection the very need for a God concept and movement towards secular humanist values (winter light). I’m here, not sure if the trend continues (next up is the Silence and Persona).

His dueling humanist and religious agnosticism was there from the start (brilliantly portrayed in Seventh Seal, I found). It kinda bugged me for a while as it seemed relatively static for a few films. But with Winter Light, I think I saw a progression. It’s like an at the base humanist guy taking us through his initial doubts and ultimate rejection of religion. Bergman’s dad was a severe preacher man, so there may some meta to personal experience/growth in there too, parallel to the religious discussion.

For the record, I share Bergman’s conclusions (if that’s where he’s going) in rejecting a God concept and instead focusing on humanist values. But, I disagree with his reasoning. It seems emotional based, rather than logical. He seems to be rejecting God because it does nothing for him. This kinda goes with how I feel most people approach this. As a question of what they ´want’. If it makes them feel good, they believe. If it doesn’t, they may reject. That’s a completely wrong approach. It should be an objective reality question. Is there one or isn’t there. Is there sufficient evidene to believe. That sort of thing. It’s like asking whether there is life on mars or somewhat and people believing or disbelieving based on emotional preferences. What you feel or prefer has no bearing on it. It’s irrelevant. Look at it objectively and decide, actually taking care to eliminate emotional preferences and biases. Back when I was a wee lad and quite religious, I actually didn’t care if God was nice or not. Heck, even if he was the biggest asshole ever, if he was omnipresent and omnipowerful (by definition, unbeatable), well I was going to be a suck up regardless. Think of it, the absolute all powerful ruler of the universe deciding what to do with you for eternity. Yeah. Who cares of he’s nice or not. You have no choice. I stopped believing simply because as I grew, it seemed implausible.

Anywho, just an aside. Bergman seems like my kind of guy. Pretty optimistic humanist without religious belief. The road is just different.

Talked about it before. There is a collection (Criteron) of classic films. You can go on it and look at different movies. Even have trailers and whatnot. It’s pretty straight forward. I’m sure the artistes know all about it. Mumu/mac seem to have seen everything I’m talking about. I’m like an excited 1st year student doing through the basics all excite and whatnot and trying to talk to the seniors.

You guys kinda suck. Barely anyone talks about anything here beyond one liners and sporatic talk about a bad hockey team. I’m pretty much the one keeping a discussion going with whatever is on my mind. A few discuss a bit. Every once in a while somebody puts in a bit of effort. Otherwise, it’s just barren. You guys are smart, mostly interesting. Is there any interest in discussing anything other than superficially?

Of course, this whole film thing started because I got a new TV and was excite to us it. Watched a few films, remembered why I thought films were overwhelmingly crap and had largely given up on watching them, decided to look for independant films, which also tend to be crap, which lead me to classics, where the hit/miss ratio seems to be much better, I find. Being me, I get excite when I get into something. Being on broads, I talk about what’s currently on my mind.

I am not a Bergman lover or connaisseur by any stretch and I know very little of his oeuvre.

But Cries and Whispers is amongst my ten favourite films ever (including Andrei Rublev, and The Passion of Joan of Arc by Dreyer; and also Bennett Miller's Moneyball, while we're at it).

It is magnificent, beautiful to look at, extremely poignant, and it is astonishingly shocking.

I cry everytime I watch it, and I was profoundly disturbed by some of its imagery.

Can't live without that film.

Cries and Whispers is on the up next list (after Persona which is next). Trying to go chronologically on selected titles basically. I've had trouble finding scenes from a marriage -will look harder. Passion of Joan of Arc is on the list (my only 'real oldie' has been Metropolis and I really liked it so added a lot more of the early 20th century classics to the list). Passion of Joan of Arc is up there amongst oldies. There's a bit of a shock with these old oldies, I found. How contemporary they are. You are looking at people 70-100 years ago (which in itself is incredible). They are everything just like today (few tech and cultural differences notwithstanding). I should give Rublev another try. A thing I find is that many of these films are quite dense and it takes repeated viewings and reading/thinking about it to really get it. First viewings can be more a "gut reaction" than anything. First viewing (especially without prior info) seems to be more about you. You bring yourself to the interpretation. Takes a a lot more knowledge of the director and his overall vision to get 'him'.

Watched The Silence last night. The third of Bergman's so-called trilogy on faith (albeit, I would not have seen it if I hadn't read it). That was, again, absolutely superb. I don't know much about anything, but Bergman is turning out to be quite something. I read somewhere that some people interpret the two sisters as two facets of the same person (the Mind and the Body, as it were). I kinda dismissed it at first, but after thinking on it I think that is exactly what he had in mind. Starting with the schizo chick in Through a Glass Darkly -that was the 'split'. If any of you have ever lost your religion (after having been real religious), this is exactly what it feels like. A deep, absolutely core, part of your understanding of the world dissolves. You feel like you kinda lose your bearings until you again find your footing on something else. Some other 'theory of life'. Bergman illustrates his passage from doubt to loss of religion to rebuilding his worldview based on secular humanism. That's like exactly what I went through in my late teens/early twenties (albeit, as I mentioned yesterday, for bit different rational). Wasn't that different either when I shifted my life goals from international mens of mystery (and related goals, basically from a relatively untethered existence pursuing interests) to a fixed family life. That was a big leap. Took a lot of thinking, deciding on priorities and then reorganizing your 'theory of self'. I imagine everybody goes through this. Somebody like nanners is surely going through something like this right now. Reinventing yourself and worldview. It's scary as fuck, for a time you have no foot on firm ground. The old world collapses. You need to build a new one. It's also the most rewarding thing in life if you do it honestly and courageously (in keeping with your core values). Creative destruction. It’s how you grow. Anywho, to have expressed this deep aspect of humanity in such a brilliant meta manner -without spoon feeding- is fucken genius from Bergman. Then, once past the transition, he also seems to be a fucken genius at examining human relations. As a secular humanist, he now throws himself exclusively at examining human relations. The isolation between people. The barriers. He wants to get at why people don't 'commune' more. He's freaking brilliant!

To me, this is the true magic of art. Because humans are things that understand much more with stories than facts, art, through meta, tells it like it is in a way that profoundly connects (more than facts, because of the way we are wired). It's dangerous, can easily be manipulated. Most have little to say of 'value', many just pluck on the strings without saying much. And that's fine. It can be entertainment. Albeit I also feel it is profoundly dangerous. Like marketing. Subconscious priming with shit, basically. Every once in a while, you get a real one, though. Somebody with something to say and who actually says it well (two different things). Maybe that is what Rublev was about and my disagreements with Tarkovsky keeps me from seeing it or accepting it from him.

Mufasa wrote:I think you discuss most things superficially, your take on the existence of God is a good exemple.

This is good.

Tell me more.

You didn’t expand. If you feel like it, I wouldn’t mind knowing what you have in mind. Do you mean I dismiss « felt knowledge » (or something analogous to that, such as traditional wisdom) and over focus on what may appear as « reductive » scientific type knowledge?